AR
TICLE
1 Diretoria de Vigilância Sanitária e Ambiental (DIVISA), Secretaria de Saúde da Bahia (SESAB). Av. Antônio Carlos Magalhães s/n - Centro de Atenção Especial Prof. José Maria de Magalhães Neto, Iguatemi. 41820-000 Salvador BA Brasil. cris. sanchesleal@gmail.com 2 Instituto de Humanidades, Artes e Ciências,
Universidade Federal da Bahia. Salvador BA Brasil.
Solidarity: an innovative perspective in the management
and organization of Sanitary Surveillance actions
Abstract This is a theoretical essay about the development of the concept of solidarity, a word used in the regulatory framework and in political proposals to reorient the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). The methodology consisted of map-ping authors addressing human action aspects related to this theme from Durkheim’s tradition, linking them to his followers, like Marcel Mauss and authors from the “anti-utilitarianism” move-ment in social sciences. Solidarity is one way to express a “gift” and appears as a multidimension-al action, where duty and freedom, instrumentmultidimension-al interest and disinterest interpose and interlace. The planning and execution of sanitary surveil-lance (VISA) actions requires comprehension of organizational forms and solidary relationship management among agents involved in health risk control, transcending the strongly normative aspect of the prevailing supervision actions. The development of associative actions involving san-itary surveillance professionals, economic agents and consumers, aiming to share the responsibili-ties in the health risk control of products, services and environments subjected to Sanitary
Surveil-lance action is suggested.
Key words Sociology, Healthcare Planning and Management, Sanitary Surveillance, Health risk management
Leal COBS,
T
Introduction
Modern man suffers from the transformations that have occurred throughout the twentieth cen-tury, namely: advances in science and technology, which increase exponentially with the develop-ment of the information society; the gradual and unsustainable growth of consumption; individ-ualism and “liquid” relationships, where ties are placed in the background in interpersonal rela-tionships; the emergence of a society of risks in-herent to the modernization process, both in the environmental perspective and in changing ways of life, such as changes in the labor market, espe-cially with the introduction of women1-6.
However, this process did not extinguish “the fundamental human need for an impulse of af-fection and spontaneity in relationships with others”7, which calls into question the very
con-cept of solidarity, contrasting with the hegemony of rational-utilitarian thought and the neoliberal doctrine.
Some studies explain current ways of sol-idarity: Salazar8 discusses the management of
volunteer work at the Irmã Dulce Social Works (OSID), seeking to understand the importance of professional management, with a consequent weakening of voluntary work, based on human-itarian action, considering the importance of keeping ties between volunteers and other insti-tutional stakeholders. Costa9 studied patterns of
solidarity in NGOs in the Metropolitan Region of Recife, finding that they structured their work in networks centered on sociability processes. To-bar and Pardo10 reflect on management in Third
Sector organizations, identifying solidarity, ad-dressing innovations and challenges. França Fil-ho11 discusses the concept of solidary economy
with a focus on the various realms it currently as-sumes: in universities, as a field of studies, and in civil society, through social movements and pub-lic popub-licies that have been implemented in Brazil. In health organizations, the establishment of the Pact for Health carried out by SUS managers and approved by the National Health Council in 200612 proposes that the SUS building process
include the organization of a “solidary and re-gionalized network of actions and services that qualify the management process”13. Decree N°
7.508/201114 regulates Law Nº 8.080/9015 and
es-tablishes the Organizational Contract for Public Health Action, understood as a “collaboration agreement signed between federative entities for the purpose of organizing and integrating health actions and services in the regionalized and
hier-archical network” for the “integrated implemen-tation of health actions and services”14. In Bahia,
Resolution Nº 249 of 201416 of the Bipartite
In-teragency Commission “establishes State and Municipality actions in the organization, imple-mentation and management of the actions of the State Health Surveillance System of the State of Bahia, in a shared, solidary, regionalized and de-centralized way”.
Thus, at the macro level, we find solidarity by guiding the agreement and management of health actions among federated entities and between them and society across the SUS. However, what about the relationships established in the daily health practice? It is necessary to search for a con-ceptual precision of the word “solidarity” for pub-lic health management, with a view to its concrete application. Thus, we ask: what moves the subject of a solidary action or causes an organization to establish relationships with other organizations? What does the word mean beyond common sense and what meaning is assigned to the term in nor-mative prescriptions and political-managerial propositions elaborated within the SUS?
To answer these questions, we initially search for the meanings of the word in the dictionary, finding that its definition encompasses the idea of responsibility17 and presupposes shared
atti-tudes and feelings focused on the interpersonal relationship and can be applied to relationships between groups and even organizations. Howev-er, this general definition is not enough to un-derstand the multiple meanings attributed in the academic debate and in the broader sociocultur-al space. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the notion/concept of “solidarity” by tracking this word in the work of social sciences authors and then discuss its meaning and impli-cations regarding the organization and manage-ment of health surveillance actions, an important health surveillance component within the SUS.
Tracking the notion/concept of solidarity
e C
ole
tiv
a,
22(10):3161-3172,
2017
Weber points out that social action builds on different beliefs and aspirations and gains sub-jective meanings for stakeholders, proposing a classification of their types as rational, affective and traditional, interpreting them from the ra-tionalization typical of the contemporary era18.
On the other hand, Bourdieu reflects on so-cial action related to the concept of capital, un-derstood as “social relationship”, “designating the network of social relationships that is one of the essential riches of the dominant”19. This
conception allows the author to identify the var-ious types of capital, in addition to the economic ones, namely, the cultural, symbolic, social and scientific capital of agents acting in different en-vironments or fields19,20.
It is interesting to note that, assuming the complexity of social relationships, this author emphasizes that the sociologist cannot be guided by a utilitarian view of social life, following only an economistic rationale, without considering cooperation, solidarity, friendship, love and com-passion, realms underpinning social relation-ships. In this perspective, it is possible to think that the motive of certain actions is not only the prospect of gains from the economic standpoint, including possible other interests that consider, for example, feelings and not only reason. There-fore, subjects may and are sometimes inclined to act in solidarity, not solely in a utilitarian way19.
Even in authors linked to the “rational-utili-tarian” tradition21, there is an attempt to include
and explain the need for solidarity within social relationships, although they understand it as part of the rational calculation necessary to solve the problem of social coordination. It is based on the premise that individuals often need each other and require cooperation, because insofar as the division of labor increases, there is a need to cre-ate norms to regulcre-ate the coordination of the activities underlying the process. Surveillance, rewards and punishments would be thought-out solutions; however, it is possible to invest in the configuration of solidary actions. Solidarity in small groups would be created more easily than in large ones, requiring control specialization so that solidarity occurs in the latter.
According to these authors, these are pro-posals for rational solutions for the creation of social solidarity, as in the theory of games, al-though they are not sure that it would solve re-al-life problems. The “Prisoner’s Dilemma”22,23
illustrates this reflection, when the option for a solidary action would be the most reasonable among prisoners placed in different cells, even if
they were tempted to assume a selfish option, in-sofar as they did not know what the other would choose. However, this theory has not been thor-oughly examined and there is no way to predict empirically where solidarity might be found the most21.
In order to obtain conceptual contributions from Sociology and Social Anthropology, we take as a point of departure the understanding of the different aspects and traditions underlying the Social Theory21,24. Collins21 proposes four great
traditions in the field of Sociology: the conflict tradition, derived from Karl Marx, Friedrich En-gels and Max Weber; the utilitarian tradition, known as the exchange or rational choice theory; the microinteractionist tradition, whose aspects are pragmatism, symbolic interactionism and phenomenology or ethnomethodology; and the Durkheimian tradition. The latter includes, in addition to its founder, Montesquieu, Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, besides Robert Merton and Talcott Parsons, representatives of an organicist and functionalist perspective, con-centrating on the macrostructure of society. The lineage of Social Anthropology emphasizes that rituals of social groups produce solidarity and is represented by Marcel Mauss, Lévi-Strauss, Rad-cliffe-Brown, Erving Goffman and Mary Doug-las, among others21.
We have opted to retrieve the reflection on solidarity from Durkheim and his followers up to this moment. Next was the work by Marcel Mauss, Jacques Godbout, Alain Caillé and oth-er authors of the M.A.U.S.S. - Mouvement
An-ti-Utilitariste dans les Sciences Sociales, revealing
its importance now.
Solidarity in primary societies
In Durkheim25, we found a first study on
sol-idarity, which was his PhD thesis26, namely, The
Division of Labor in Society, 1893, a theme
previ-ously discussed by him in one of the courses held at the University of Bordeaux in Paris (1888). Durkheim considers solidarity as a “social fact”, which according to the author’s definition “is any way of doing, fixed or not, capable of exerting on the individual an external coercion: or else, which is general within a given society, at the same time having its own existence, regardless of its indi-vidual manifestations”26. The study of
Leal COBS,
T
This author26 believes that a collection of
individuals could constitute a society through solidarity, namely, the mechanical and organ-ic; and feelings and beliefs common to most of its members. In mechanical solidarity societies, these beliefs and feelings were part of most in-dividual consciousness. Let us look at Raymond Aron’s explanation: “In societies where the differ-entiation of individuals occurs, each one (…) is free to believe, to want and to act according his/ her own preferences. In mechanical solidarity so-cieties, (...) most of existence is guided by social imperatives and prohibitions”27.
Durkheim refers to Law when he differenti-ates between organic and mechanical solidarity; he considers the Law as restitutive and coercive, respectively, and neglects real Law – the relation-ship between the individual and things. The ad-vance of organic solidarity would be related to the division and specialization of labor and would correspond to the restitutive Law. In the simplest societies, coercive techniques prevail in coercive Law. Durkheim believed that real Law could only exist if individuals were alone in the world and should not be part of sociological analyses. To consider the individual could lead to anomie, by causing things to gravitate around wills, rather than a direction of common ends25-28.
This author was concerned with the study of a new morality – not the religious – and sought to construct a “moral science”, a “moral theory”, however, without considering that science could replace or overcome forces of social cohesion, especially religion. He sought consensus and concentrated on the social bond and the unity that integrates people. Social phenomena would be understood from the standpoint of solidarity and sharing, either between believers, in the case of religion, or between citizens, in the case of lay morality25,27,28.
Religion, education and politics would be moral forces capable of organizing society, weld-ing individuals dispersed therein. Moral char-acter would be there in primitive societies, but absent in complex societies. It was a matter of seeking, in the religious universes, ideological elements that approached individuals and social groups, where it would be important to establish an intellectual and moral reform, with education playing an important role, a proposition reaf-firmed later by Bourdieu25,28.
Marcel Mauss, nephew and follower of Durkheim, continued his work and studied the primitive societies, called archaic or more pre-cisely primary societies. His famous book Essai
sur le don: forme et raison de l’échange dans les
sociétés archaïques is considered by Lévi-Strauss,
Caillé, Graeber and others as a masterpiece. The author introduced the notion of Total Social Fact: “the social is only real when it is integrated into a system”; with three-dimensional interpre-tations, it addresses the physical, physiological, psychic and sociological aspects of conducts; it links the social and the individual, the physical (or physiological) and the psychic of another29.
To be understood, facts are things, but things that are part of subjective apprehension. Thus, Mauss expands Durkheim’s concept and influences not only ethnographers, “but also linguists, psychol-ogists, historians of religions and Orientalists” and “a plethora of French researchers”29-31.
The essay reveals, through an extensive re-view of anthropological studies, the importance of giving to those societies, in initial contexts of approximation for later economic exchanges. It is worth noting that the word “gift” is used for the French translation of the word “endowment” (In Portuguese, gift is (1) spontaneous offer; do-nation; (2) favor; blessing. Endowment is (1) aptitude for something; inclination; talent; (2) blessing, gift given by someone, from the Latin word donum)32.
The methodology chosen by Mauss consist-ed of “a precise comparison method (...) in se-lected and chosen areas: Polynesia, Melanesia, Northwest America, and some great rights”33.
Describing the systems studied in their entire-ty, the author reveals that the establishment of bonds through exchange of gifts preceded trade between those societies, bringing a new way of thinking into economy and morality: “In the Scandinavian civilization, and in many others, exchange and contracts are made in the form of gifts, in theory voluntary, but are in fact obligato-rily given and reciprocated”33.
Mauss’ fundamental question was to unveil the rule for the obligatory retribution of a pres-ent: “what force is there in that which is given so that it causes the recipient to reciprocate it?”33.
He discovers that there is a voluntary and unmo-tivated, but also forced and interested character, which he called a “system of total services”33,
whose non-retribution would be the cause of wars and rivalries: “there is total provision in that, in fact, it is really all the clan that contracts on behalf of all, for everything that it possesses and for all it does, through its chief ”33. Mauss came to
e C
ole
tiv
a,
22(10):3161-3172,
2017
contract and sale; and the morality and economy of these transactions in the societies studied, but also the problems posed by what he calls the cri-sis of law and the cricri-sis of the economy.
The author inaugurates a new way of thinking about economics and social relationships: in order to have economic exchange, primary societies – collectivities and not isolated individuals – created the tie, the bond through the primacy of the latter over mercantile exchange, which he denominated triple obligation (to give, to receive and to recip-rocate with gifts), which consisted not only of ma-terial goods, but also of courtesies, banquets, rites, women, military services, dances, feasts, fairs; besides necklaces, bracelets, blankets, valuables, among others. They took place during the visits that tribes of those societies did to each other for later exchange of goods. He found that the triple obligation33 had some kind of universality.
Mauss even foresaw the application of his findings in the current modernity. Thus, in the conclusions of his Essay ..., he reveals that “it is possible to extend these observations to our own societies. A considerable part of our morality and our own life always remains in the same atmo-sphere of giving, obligation and at the same time of freedom”33.
The author33 considers that the
non-retribu-tion of a gift makes he/she who received it inferi-or and enumerates finferi-orms of gifts in his/her time: in the obligation of retribution to an invitation; in the value of artistic, literary and scientific property beyond the purchase and sale value, but as a collective product, a human betterment; in social security, as a recognition by the State and employers of security against unemployment, ill-ness, old age and death; in the family assistance fund in France and other European countries, as guarantees to workers and their relatives. It con-siders these facts as a return to law, in this case, corporate law, a “group morality”, the need for society to find the “social cell: in charity, in social service, in solidarity”33.
Mauss33 also warns of the need to return to
archaic values, which he calls “noble consump-tion”: the rich are treasurers of their fellow citi-zens; greater care with individuals, their health, their education, family, future; good faith, sen-sitivity, generosity, because: “there are no two wisdoms. Let us adopt, then, as the principle of our life, what has always been a principle and al-ways will be to leave oneself, to give, freely and obligatorily; there is no risk of deception. A Mao-ri proverb says “give as much as you receive and everything will be fine”33.
Solidarity in late modernity
Shifting from the archaic to the modern gift is given in the “introduction of the market in so-cial relationships, as a surrogate for internal re-lationships, rather than between foreigners (...) the feudal society, rather than the archaic soci-ety is found at the origin of the modern gift”34.
One of the characteristics of modernity itself is the entry of the market into social relationships, the expansion of capitalism and the hegemony of liberal thought, beyond state bureaucracy.
The emergence of M.A.U.S.S. and its mag-azine, Revue du MAUSS – semestrielle, homage to Marcel Mauss, paves the way to the retrieval of non-utilitarian values in Social Sciences and the importance of gift and solidarity in today’s world. Founded in 1981 by a group of French in-tellectuals dissatisfied with the course of studies in the field of Social Sciences, which placed the hegemonic rational-utilitarian doctrine beyond the behavior of man before the market, but for all human action, M.A.U.S.S. is established after a colloquium on the gift between Alain Caillé and Gerald Berthoud, where it was found “with astonishment that none of the assembled scien-tists had suspected that generosity or a genuine concern for the well-being of others could be a significant motive of the gift”22,31.
Considered a project “at the same time intel-lectual, ethical and political, scientific and phil-osophical”35 of renewal of the Social Sciences
in France, and still little disseminated in Brazil, M.A.U.S.S. is characterized by having intellec-tuals from various disciplines – sociologists, ethnologists, law specialists, historians, political economy and the science of religions – who seek to understand meaningful action, moving away from structuralist abstractionism and creating new alliances within humanism. Its founders theoretically approach intellectuals of the lineage of Claude Lefort, Cornelius Castoriadis; of Ed-gar Morin’s complex thinking; besides theorists of the solidary economy, like Jean-Louis Laville; of symbolic interactionism, such as Erving Goff-man; of Alvin Gouldner’s reflective sociology and Mary Douglas’36 cultural anthropology.
Alain Caillé22 argues that social sciences and
moral and political philosophy are permanently confronted with two paradigms, waging what he considers an “epistemological war”: the utilitari-an utilitari-and the holist.
Leal COBS,
T
point to explain social totality, stating that hu-man individual action is driven by rationality and selfish interest, also called individualist, con-tractualist and instrumentalist (paradigm). It is represented by currents of the Rational Action Theory, Game Theory, New Economic Histo-ry, Neo-institutionalism, Public Choice Theo-ry, Conventionalism, Property Rights TheoTheo-ry, among others22.
The holistic paradigm, in turn, seeks to ex-plain individual or collective human action as a manifestation of the social domination over the individual and of the need to reproduce them. That is, there is a social totality that imposes itself and commands human action, always overlap-ping the individual, represented by the function-alist, culturfunction-alist, institutionalist or structuralist22
theories.
Caillé22 proposes the third paradigm, or gift
paradigm to explain human action. In the au-thor’s own words, it is a “truly relational” para-digm, which focuses on overcoming this opposi-tion, through the retrieval and interpretation of the work of Marcel Mauss, a precursor claimed by Lévi-Strauss and Louis Dumont, representatives of structuralism and holism, respectively. The gift paradigm, or third paradigm, believes that “it is not by subjecting themselves to the despotism of the law or taking refuge in each one for him-self and deception that human beings will be able to find some peace, security and happiness”22.
It aims to analyze the social linkage through in-terrelations that bind individuals, transforming them into social stakeholders. Human action can be guided not only by utilitarian intentions, but also driven by the desire to do good.
According to this paradigm, human action harbors “material or immaterial calculation and interest, but not only that: there is also ob-ligation, spontaneity, friendship and solidarity, in short, gift”22, which performs alliances and
weaves ties, with a universality in what Mauss called the “triple obligation”: to give, receive and reciprocate. Mauss affirms that obligation also arises in the gift and, thus, an exhortation to in-dividuation and personal action, demonstrating that freedom triumphs22,34. Thus, Mauss had “to
enter into a peace treaty between sociological and psychological “imperalisms”28.
Caillé22 seeks to make explicit what is
under-stood by gift and establishes two definitions; in the first, the sociological is understood as “any provision of goods or services without guarantee of return”, where the primacy of establishing the social bond exists, which is more important than
the donated good; in the second (general defini-tion), he defines it as “any action or service per-formed without guarantee or certainty of return” (idem), and this fact is underpinned by the realm of gratuity.
On the other hand, Godbout36 seeks gift
mod-els based on the role of debt, which differentiates the gift from the market: there is no debt settle-ment in the gift, as it is a primordial character-istic of the relationships with the market. Thus, the gift would have five manifestation models: 1) solidarity, with the circulation of goods and which can be represented by the model estab-lished by the State and which is closer to debt; 2) the agonistic gift, between equals, with debt nearing equality and reciprocity playing a funda-mental role; 3) the gift between unequal, which is hierarchical, like clientelism relationships; 4) the gift to strangers, without primary bond be-tween donor and receiver; and 5) the gift found in primary bonds, whose mutual debt is positive, which is represented in the manifestations of the gift especially between relatives and friends.
This author34 discusses several examples and
the possible reasons for current gift concealment: the predominance of utilitarian thought, where confessing the inconsistency or lack of gift is a way of assuming modernity or postmodernity. The author encourages us to think differently, since the gift requires the implicit and the unsaid for its manifestation and acts with non-formulat-ed rules and is often confusnon-formulat-ed with equivalence or exchange.
Godbout points out that, in order to stand the gift’s concealments, we need to under-stand that there is always a relationship with the economic rationale and we must ask ourselves about the formulation of the initial tie if it does not obey rules that escape us. Moreover, there is also the (mis) understanding that the true gift is free and that gratuitousness is impossible! We would have to conceive gift as a relationship and a symbol, thus, “evaluator of person-to-person relationships, catalyst and indicator of elective affinities”34.
Godbout refers us to the feeling of Mar-cel Mauss in introducing the Essay on the gift, equivalent to the dominant feeling about the current manifestations of the gift, but concealed by the primacy of utilitarian rational thought in late modern societies34. The Action Theory in
Mauss22, or Multidimensional Theory of Action
orga-e C
ole
tiv
a,
22(10):3161-3172,
2017
nized into two opposing pairs: obligation (co-ercion) and freedom (spontaneity, creativity); interest (instrumental interest) and disinterest (motivated to do good, solidary).
The practical application of the gift paradigm is addressed through to the logic of the “associa-tive fact” by Caillé35, where “entering into
asso-ciation is, first and foremost, to make one’s own time and person available; therefore, there is an obvious linkage between the issue of the mean-ing of gift and that of the statute of associative action”. Therefore, gift is considered the political act par excellence, a paradigm of the politician.
Thus, Mauss discovery could not be seen only in archaic societies, but currently in primary sociability, referring to person-to-person rela-tionship; and secondary sociability, referring to people and roles that other people play, such as the market, law and science. The associative fact “unfolds in the interface of primary and second-ary elements (...) allowing the execution of func-tional tasks by way of personalization or the es-tablishment of alliances on a large scale, alliances appropriate to the larger society”35.
Caillé35 also affirms that the associative fact
develops in non-profit enterprises, but with com-mon interests, where trust and mutual indebted-ness rule and all benefit; it requires more than a formal legal content, since there are a variety of associations, in different places and with dif-ferent legal frameworks; thus, there are difdif-ferent types of associations: tacit or explicit; sanctioned by law/custom/nothing; with free entry/exit or not; with different purposes and scale; and with different ways of recruiting its members and level of autonomy in relation to other organizations and degree of referentiality; and also consisting of volunteers and/or employees. The associative covenant is established by means of the gift, and there is a link between association and democ-racy, in secondary public spaces, in the tacit col-lective pact, in the political level, “but also - and perhaps first and foremost – in daily life, at the core of the primary public spaces occupied by associations”35.
The author argues that, if in the past solidar-ity took place at the core of personified solidarsolidar-ity – from man to man – in modernity it is char-acterized by impersonality, in a functional and redistributive way, as in the welfare state, which goes through a deep crisis. It is necessary, then, to establish new solidarity ways, with men recogniz-ing themselves as members of the same society, looking at each other. Gift, solidarity, association, establishing alliances and democracy go hand in
hand: “Solidarity in our societies must begin by taking the democratic requirement seriously (...), democracy is only taken seriously (...) when it fa-vors the proliferation of associations”35.
In this aspect of association, França Filho and Cunha38 discuss the local networks of
soli-dary economy, taking as an example the project called Eco Luzia, in Simões Filho, in the State of Bahia, Brazil. Networks are defined as “an asso-ciation or coordination of various enterprises and/or initiatives of solidary economy with a view to establishing a proper circuit of econom-ic relationships and exchange of experiences and formative knowledge”38, whose main objectives
were to provide sustainability to enterprises and initiatives and to empower a territory as to the capacity for self-promotion.
They reveal a “sustainable-solidary concep-tion”, which is committed to solidarity, coop-eration and collective actions, considering the structural nature of unemployment and the ex-clusionary rationale of the capitalist system; they focus on a new economy, emphasizing territori-al self-sustainability, seeking to reorganize locterritori-al economies from the establishment of networks of solidary economy, a “complex and innovative cooperation strategy for the promotion of local development”38.
Martins39 discusses the need to bring health
and sociology disciplines closer, making a syn-thesis between the thoughts of Durkheim, Mauss and Elias, revealing the possibilities of practical application, from the standpoint of the estab-lishment of social networks and reinforcing the expanded understanding between the social and the individual for solidary social practices in health, emphasizing the need for their reorga-nization to meet social demands. This is called a systemic, paradoxical and interactive view of community and local life, for new modalities of public policies.
Solidarity as an innovative perspective in the organization and management of health surveillance actions
sub-Leal COBS,
T
ject of health practices to perform a solidary ac-tion? Or better still: what should an organization do to establish solidary relationships with other organizations?
Health surveillance actions are considered, above all, as health promotion practices and play an important role in the prevention of risks and health protection, controlling possible diseases affecting the population40. These are actions that
include the ethical principle of beneficence and should not be limited to the legal, technical and administrative realms; they have specificities, since they must qualify products, processes, ser-vices and environments, including work environ-ments, but that do not dissociate from others in the field of health in the conception of compre-hensive care41,42.
Risk management and communication are health regulation components and are necessary to the control of risks related to object of health surveillance, which uses specific intervention technologies, such as inspection and oversight; health education programs; monitoring of ad-vertising; healthcare alerts, among others, and acts based on the implementation of healthcare standards, supervising their compliance and punishing regulated sector’s non-compliance. In order to do so, it has “police power”, a right granted to its agents to defend public interest, to the detriment of individual interests41,43,44. It is a
power that can therefore be punitive and coer-cive, especially during the surveillance process.
In bringing the concept of solidarity and its operationalization, in particular through the establishment of networks as a strategy for the management of the system and organization of the actions of several objects under the responsi-bility of health surveillance, we consider that this alternative facilitates the minimization of prob-lems found in the management and organization of its system and favors ways of solidarity, espe-cially if we consider objects that require man-agement of social perspective, which empowers subjects and qualifies processes45-47. Thus, the
thematic of establishing organizational networks becomes a possibility of a solidary responsibility in health risk management. We could say that set-ting networks is considered a new health surveil-lance intervention technology for the manage-ment and communication of health risk. Thus, gift, solidarity, association and establishment of alliances through network action is a health sur-veillance democratic way of organizing its work process as an innovative way of managing and organizing its actions. As such, the first question
is answered: what should move the subject of health practices to perform a solidary action is the feeling of responsibility.
In order to do so, it is necessary to foster the capacity of structuring local health surveillance, providing the control of risks related to several objects. In this process, it is imperative to take account of regional and local diversities, politi-cal, economic and socio-cultural diversities in Brazilian municipalities. A large communication and coordination capacity is required, which is typical of network action and is embodied in the associative and, therefore, relational form, in the interface between primary sociability – person-to-person – and secondary sociability – people and roles, as we have seen; linking health surveillance and institutions stakeholders whose objects interface with their actions, or health surveillance-regulated stakeholders, or even con-sumers and representative sectors of objects reg-ulated by health surveillance.
In order to achieve this process, it is imper-ative to radicalize democracy in public insti-tutions, taking the “democratic requirement seriously”35. An organization becomes solidary
when it provides the establishment of networks seeking efficiency in public management, one of its own principles, since networks are horizontal organizational structures that allow broad par-ticipation, cooperation, the establishment of ties and linkages with a view to achieving common objectives45.
e C
ole
tiv
a,
22(10):3161-3172,
2017
solidary relationships with other organizations. It is within this perspective that Leal and Teix-eira45 report the setting of the Street Food
Man-agement Network of Salvador as an operational proposal for the solidary management of street food’s health risk. Street food is an object of great complexity that is poorly investigated by health surveillance; it must consider important realms, namely, social, economic, nutritional and cultur-al recultur-alms; it is found throughout the Brazilian territory and is of global importance. Thus, it re-quires social management of health surveillance, which fosters the development of stakeholders involved for the empowerment of this segment at the local level. However, this rationale can be implemented in any organization48.
Because it is a segment of great social vul-nerability, street food requires a different look from the regulatory agencies. The studies point out weaknesses in the structuring of this trade, the low priority given by local managers to its qualification, although it is a strong component for the development of the local economy, it has an important cultural realm and evidences food risks as a component of environmental-related and worker-related risks, which are important objects for health surveillance as a component of health surveillance in the SUS45-47,49.
Final considerations
We have brought conceptual contributions from social theories to explain the understanding of solidary action, considering solidarity as a gift through the description of readings of authors of a chain of thinkers that retrieves the work of Mauss22 and creates a poorly disseminated Action
Theory by Mauss, especially in health and even
less in health surveillance. In the words of Caillé himself, “everything here must be explored em-pirically and thought theoretically”22.
For its implementation, it is worth retrieving values that can guide individuals to act in soli-darity; as well as health organizations, so that they work on the choice of values, as we have seen in Max Weber18. In the same way, we stress,
in Durkheim, the importance of collective con-sciousness, social cohesion, the search for moral authority, as Mauss affirms, stressing a “group morality”. Thus, the reading of the classics were an important way here to begin to understand the social21,50.
Quoting Godbout34: “The value of a tie
de-pends on people’s characteristics, the nature of the bond and a set of variables (...). The more things are isolated from their tie value, the more they become transportable, cold (frozen) pure objects that escape time.”
Leal COBS,
T
Collaborations
e C
ole
tiv
a,
22(10):3161-3172,
2017
References
1. Beck U. Sociedade de risco:rumo a uma outra moderni-dade. São Paulo: Ed. 34; 2010.
2. Bauman Z. Amor líquido:sobre a fragilidade das relações
humanas. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar; 1994.
3. Bauman Z. Ética pós-moderna. São Paulo: Paulus; 1997. 4. Bauman Z. O mal-estar da pós-modernidade. Rio de
Ja-neiro: Jorge Zahar; 1998.
5. Bauman Z. Modernidade Líquida. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar; 2001.
6. Giddens A. As consequências da modernidade. São Pau-lo: Editora da Unesp; 1991.
7. Elias N. A sociedade dos indivíduos. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar; 1994.
8. Salazar CRS. Gestão do voluntariado e dádiva: reflexões
à luz do caso Obras Sociais Irmã Dulce – OSID
[disser-tação]. Salvador: Universidade Federal da Bahia; 2004. 9. Costa JRF. Sociedade civil, humanitarismo e
utilitaris-mo: um estudo empírico sobre os padrões de
solidarieda-de das ONGs da RMR [dissertação]. Recife:
Universida-de FeUniversida-deral Universida-de Pernambuco; 2004.
10. Tobar F, Pardo CF. Organizaciones solidarias: gestión e innnovación en el tercer setor. Buenos Aires: Lugar Edi-torial; 2001.
11. França Filho GC. Teoria e prática em economia soli-dária: problemática, desafios e vocação. Civitas 2007; 7(1):155-174.
12. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde (MS). Portaria GM/MS 399 de 22 de fevereiro de 2006. Divulga o Pacto pela Saú-de 2006 – Consolidação do SUS e aprova as diretrizes operacionais do referido Pacto. 2006. Diário Oficial da União 2006; 22 fev.
13. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde (MS). Pactos pela vida, em
Defesa do SUS e de gestão. Brasília: CONASS,
CONA-SEMS; 2006.
14. Brasil. Decreto 7.508, de 28 de junho de 2011. Regula-menta a Lei nº 8.080, de 19 de setembro de 1990, para dispor sobre a organização do Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS, o planejamento da saúde, a assistência à saúde e a articulação interfederativa, e dá outras providências.
Diário Oficial da União 2011; 29 jun.
15. Brasil. Senado. Lei n.º 8.080 de 19 de setembro de 1990. Dispõe sobre as condições para a promoção, proteção e recuperação da saúde, a organização e o funcionamen-to dos serviços correspondentes, e dá outras providên-cias. Diário Oficial da União 1990; 19 set.
16. Bahia. Comissão Intergestora Bipartite. Resolução n.º 249 de 2014. Diário Oficial do Estado da Bahia 2014; 31 dez.
17. Michaelis. Dicionário escolar da língua portuguesa. São Paulo: Melhoramentos; 2002.
18. Aron R. Max Weber. In: Aron R. As etapas do pensamen-to sociológico. 7ª ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes; 2008. p. 725-857. Coleção Tópicos.
19. Bourdieu P. Bourdieu e a Sociologia. In: Pierre
Bour-dieu entrevistado por Maria Andréa Loyola. Rio de
Ja-neiro: UERJ; 2002. p. 63-86.
20. Bourdieu P. Le champ scientitifique. In: Ortiz R, orga-nizador, Fernandes F, coordenador. Pierre Bourdieu – Sociologia: São Paulo: Ática; 1983. p. 88-104.
21. Collins R. Quatro tradições sociológicas. Petrópolis: Vo-zes; 2009. Coleção Sociologia.
22. Caillé A. Antropologia do dom:o terceiro paradigma. Pe-trópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2002.
23. Srour RH. A ética nas organizações. In: Srour RH. Po-der, cultura e ética nas organizações. 13ª ed. Rio de Janei-ro: Elsevier; 2005. p.306-366.
24. Giddens A, Turner J, organizadores. Teoria Social hoje. São Paulo: UNESP; 1999.
25. Ortiz R. Durkheim, arquiteto e herói fundador. In:
Ciências sociais e trabalho intelectual. São Paulo: Olho d’água; 2002. p. 89-122.
26. Durkheim E. Da divisão do trabalho social. 3ª ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes; 2008. Coleção Tópicos. 27. Aron R. Émile Durkheim. In: Aron R. As etapas do
pen-samento sociológico. 7ª ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes;
2008. p. 456-588. Coleção Tópicos.
28. Ortiz R. Durkheim, um percurso sociológico. In:
Ci-ências sociais e trabalho intelectual. São Paulo: Olho
d’água; 2002. p. 123-147.
29. Lévi-Strauss C. Introdução à obra de Marcel Mauss. In: Mauss M. Ensaio sobre a Dádiva. Lisboa: Edições 70; 2008. p. 7-47.
30. Caillé A. Dádiva e associação. In: Martins PH, organi-zador. A dádiva entre os modernos:discussão sobre os fundamentos e as regras do social. Petrópolis: Ed. Vozes; 2002. p. 191-205.
31. Graeber D. Marcel Mauss e o M.A.U.S.S. In: Martins PH, organizador. A dádiva entre os modernos:discussão
sobre os fundamentos e as regras do social. Petrópolis:
Ed. Vozes; 2002. p.19-29.
32. Houaiss. Grande Dicionário da língua portuguesa. [acessado 2013 jul 8]. Disponível em: http://houaiss. uol.com.br/busca?palavra=SOLIDARIEDADE 33. Mauss M. Ensaio sobre a dádiva. Lisboa: Edições 70
Ltda; 2008.
34. Godbout JT. O Espírito da dádiva. Paris: Instituto Pia-get, Éditions La Découvert; 1992. Coleção Epistemolo-gia e Sociedade.
35. Martins PH. Prefácio. In: Martins, PH, organizador. A dádiva entre os modernos: discussão sobre os fundamen-tos e as regras do social. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes; 2002. p. 7-15.
36. Godbout JT. Homo donator versus homo economicus. In: Martins PH, organizador. A dádiva entre os moder-nos:discussão sobre os fundamentos e as regras do social. Petrópolis: Ed. Vozes; 2002. p. 63-97.
37. França Filho GC, Cunha EV. Incubação de redes locais de economia solidária: lições e aprendizados a partir da experiência do Projeto Eco-Luzia e da metodologia da ITES/UFBA. Revista Organizações e Sociedade 2009; 16(51):725-747.
38. Martins PH. As redes sociais, o sistema da dádiva e o paradoxo sociológico. In: Martins PH, Fontes B, orga-nizadores. 2ª ed. Redes sociais e saúde: novas possibili-dades teóricas. Recife: Ed. Universitária da UFPE, 2008. p. 8-23.
39. Almeida-Filho N. conceito de saúde e a vigilância sa-nitária: notas para a compreensão de um conjunto organizado de práticas de saúde. In: Costa EA, orga-nizadora. Vigilância Sanitária: desvendando o enigma.
Salvador: EDUFBA; 2008. p. 19-43.
40. Costa EA. Vigilância sanitária: contribuições para o debate no processo de elaboração da Agenda de Prio-ridades de Pesquisa de Saúde. In: Brasil. Ministério da Saúde (MS). Saúde no Brasil: contribuições para a
Agenda de Prioridades de Pesquisa. Brasília: MS; 2004.
Leal COBS,
T
41. Souza GS. Vigilância sanitária no sistema local de saúde: o caso do Distrito Sanitário de Pau da Lima - Salvador/
Bahia [dissertação]. Salvador: Universidade Federal da
Bahia; 2002.
42. Costa EA. Vigilância sanitária: proteção e defesa da saú-de. São Paulo: Hucitec, Sobravime; 2004.
43. Brasil. Portaria nº 1.052, de 08 de maio de 2007.Aprova e divulga o Plano Diretor de Vigilância Sanitária. Diá-rio Oficial da União 2007; maio 9.
44. Leal COBS, Teixeira CF. Redes solidárias em vigilân-cia sanitária: a rede de gerenvigilân-ciamento da comida de rua em Salvador, BA – Brasil. Vigil. sanit. debate 2015; 3(4):20-29.
45. Leal COBS, Teixeira CF. Comida de rua: um estudo crí-tico e multirreferencial em Salvador, BA – Brasil. Vig
Sanit Debate 2014; 2(04):12-22.
46. Leal COBS. A construção de redes solidárias em vigilân-cia sanitária: fundamentos teóricos e alternativas
orga-nizacionais [tese]. Salvador: Universidade Federal da
Bahia; 2013.
47. Castells M. A sociedade em rede: a era da informação:
economia, sociedade e cultura. São Paulo: Paz e Terra;
1999.
48. Cardoso RCV, Santos SMC, Silva EO. Comida de rua e intervenção: estratégias e propostas para o mundo em desenvolvimento. Cien Saude Colet 2009; 14(4):1215-1224.
49. Alexander JC. A importância dos clássicos. In: Giddens A, Turner J, organizadores. Teoria social hoje. São Paulo: UNESP; 1999. p. 23-89.
Article submitted 30/05/2017 Approved 26/06/2017
